This is because, for historical reasons, the mips toolchain defines
"mips = 1" and "_mips = 1". Either "-Umips -U_mips" need to be added to
the CFLAGS on MIPS or the code in Arch.cc needs to be changed to avoid
the use of the "mips" and "_mips" identifiers.

I wouldn't exactly call it laconic. It's a perfectly decent self-documenting identifier as anyone who'd be able to understand what the code surrounding it was supposed to be doing would be able to recognise what the variable was for without really investigating the surrounding code. It could be more clear, but that wouldn't have been enough of an excuse to change it on its own.

Either way, the developer reference for OpenMW on our wiki says we're a camel case project, and you've changed it to snake case!

I wouldn't exactly call it laconic. It's a perfectly decent self-documenting identifier as anyone who'd be able to understand what the code surrounding it was supposed to be doing would be able to recognise what the variable was for without really investigating the surrounding code. It could be more clear, but that wouldn't have been enough of an excuse to change it on its own.

Either way, the developer reference for OpenMW on our wiki says we're a camel case project, and you've changed it to snake case!

Yes because mips means something? I could understand it if someone called it mipmaps (already used as a std::vector), then I could hazard a better guess as to its purpose without having to look at the code. I still think it is more important to be as readable as possible.